A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On October 20, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Daejeon District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and on October 25, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the same court on October 25, 2012.
On November 18, 2012, the Defendant driven, without a motorcycle driver's license, C 49C 500 meters in front of the seat of the son who is in the vice-dong of Daejeon-gu and Daejeon-gu, while under the influence of alcohol of at least 0.082% of alcohol level, the Defendant driven C 49C 500 meters in front of the Ambassador Dong Office in Daejeon-gu.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;
1. Written statements prepared in D;
1. Traffic accident report, actual situation report, survey report, report on primary drivers, report on actual state of primary drivers, and driver's license register;
1. Each photograph;
1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (a copy of a summary order attached);
1. Article applicable to criminal facts;
(a) Drinking-driving: Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act;
(b) Unlicensed driving: Article 154 subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the same Act.
1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (a punishment imposed on a person who commits a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to a drinking operation with heavier punishment);
1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The sentencing grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2(2) of the Probation Criminal Act are not good because the defendant repeats the same kind of crime, but all of his errors are dead, and his depth is divided. There exists no other criminal record except for a fine twice for the last ten years, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by the order, comprehensively taking into account the following factors.